Rick,
I see no need to deny Frontiers was engaged in the creation of Plan S. They obviously were. And it would be stupid to guess Frontiers had the interests of science foremost in their minds, Frontiers is a business.
But making that a major point, strongly hinting of “foul play”, suggests this was something special. If you want to do that, you need to demonstrate it. That hasn’t been done. Until that has been shown to be true, the term “conspiracy theory” would seem apt? It is a theory, on so far uncertain foundations, and it has strong overtones of hinting of a conspiracy. No wonder someone mentioned the term …
Now, I fully understand the reluctance to dig up more information, that often takes a lot of energy. But if it is dirt there, someone actually has to dig it up, not only strongly hint it (probably/possibly) exists.
- jan erik
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 00:10:03 +0000
Responding to both Jean-Claude and Jan Erik --
A survey of all communication between Smits and all of those he consulted while designing Plan S really would be very interesting, and undoubtedly enlightening. One could even argue that since Plan S is a plan for the allocation of public funds, the public has a right to see those communications. But given what it took just to gain access to Smit’s communications with Frontiers, it seems unlikely that he’s willing to share that information. I’d be happy to ask him if the list is interested. He has responded to questions from me in the past.
As for the term “conspiracy theory”: what’s been presented by Leonid Schneider and Kent Anderson is specific evidence that Frontiers was involved in the creation of a policy that ended up clearly benefiting Frontiers (and other publishers that work on the same model). Obviously, people will have different opinions as to whether this evidence is convincing, and if so, whether Frontier’s involvement in the creation of Plan S is a matter for serious concern. But simply incanting the magic phrase “conspiracy theory” doesn’t make the evidence of Frontier’s involvement go away.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:52:30 +0000
My reading is that this is targeted at creating distrust of the process by implying collaboration beyond what is acceptable, between Smits and Frontiers. I notice, following the links in Rick Anderson’s post following yours, a lot of “seems” that indicate this is – presently – just speculation.
A survey of all communication between Smits and other central Plan S people, and publishers, would be more interesting. But it may not show anything making blogging worthwhile? Were Elsevier, Springer/BMC, PLOS, MDPI, Hindawi and other larger publishers really left out of the conversation – against their will?
To me, the major problem with Plan S is that Smits et al. obviously has a view of scholarly publishing as being done nearly solely by major commercial companies, forgetting all the small-scale publishing being done – OA or TA. The final requirements, fortunately, took into account some of the criticism made. But the small and/or non-commercial publishers of OA journals will still face problems, so will current TA publishers.
So, yes, more consolidation will probably be the result. If that means making the bigger bigger, that is lamentable. But if it means making the smaller less small, I think it could be a good thing.
Jan Erik Frantsvåg
From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:16:34 -0400
I think the point of the story is not that Frontiers is overrepresented but that Smits's insistence that publishers were surveyed before the promulgation of Plan S is, at best, a gross exaggeration.
But does it matter? Funders are going to do what they are going to do. Researchers will either comply or lose their funding. Publishers will either find a way to create compliant venues or they will not. So Frontiers benefits, but a small society publisher is put under and has to sell or license rights to one of the big commercial publishers, whose scale makes it possible to make money with low APCs. That's the likely (unintended) consequence: more industry consolidation and fewer independent society publishers.
Joe Esposito
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:42 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 06:28:52 +0000
I am sceptical. Not that I think the facts are made up, but I see no trace of any activity to look for communication with other publishers – why only Frontiers?
I have seen scholars saying that Plan S is perfectly suited to Frontier’s business models, implying less suited for the business models of other publishers. I fail to see that Frontier’s business model is uniquely suited to Plan S, it fits most APC-based/commercial OA publishers.
Robert-Jan Smits has said that Plan S was developed partly based on consultations with publishers. Unless someone can document Frontiers was massively over-represented in this process, I will remain sceptical to the value of this story.
Best,
Jan Erik
Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Open Access Adviser
The University Library
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
phone +47 77 64 49 50
e-mail [log in to unmask]
http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618&p_dimension_id=88187
Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-8799
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:54:38 -0700
This came across my screen today, making me aware that I know too
little about the author of the post, the publisher involved, and the
other facts known about the origins and development of Plan S. Is
this posting credible and how could it help me think about the plan
and the issues?
https://forbetterscience.com/2019/07/11/frontiers-and-robert-jan-smits-emails-reveal-how-plan-s-was-conceived/
Jim O'Donnell
ASU